4 ms·
Why anyone would want to introduce modal editing into Emacs will always remain a mystery to me.
by kleiba 5y ago
Why anyone would want to introduce modal editing into Emacs will always remain a mystery to me.
- bhrgunatha 5y agoIsn't it that movement is more efficient, easier and safer (RSI)? My editing habits are too deeply ingrained. Past attempts to switch all failed. Instead I'll probably just use the good ideas from this package and adapt them to my own config. That's why I use emacs.
- kleiba 5y ago> Isn't it that movement is more efficient, easier and safer [citation needed]
- bhrgunatha 5y agoI should've been clearer - I meant according to its advocates.
- patrec 5y agoBecause modal editing is better and vimscript is worse.
- kleiba 5y agoDon't Mode Me In.
- patrec 5y agoYou're welcome to cripple yourself (and you'd be in illustrious company -- just about every famous name in Emacs's history has suffered severe RSI); I was just trying to answer your original question.
- kleiba 5y agoI don't think fame has anything to do with it, but for what it's worth, I've been using emacs for over 25 years and have never suffered from any form os RSI. I don't feel crippled, by the way. But since I like keeping an open mind, if you have any actual arguments, please feel free to share. In the mean time, if you're also open, I recommend checking out some counter arguments, for instance in the work of Larry Tessler.
- countvajhula 5y agoIt was definitely a surprise to me when I learned some time ago that "modelessness" was considered an innovation when it was developed, since editors before that (I assume) were all modal! But I don't think modal/modeless is either/or. It can be (and I personally use) both.